133 posts • joined Friday 12th June 2009 01:32 GMT
not just the 30% take for doing nothing
Apple's policy prevents the service provider from offering a cheaper price through more efficient channels.
So Apple forces the cost to ALL CONSUMERS to be increased.
Boycott any supplier that deals with Apple on this. At least until they demand their own right to price their products and services without being restricted by Apple. Or, anyone else.
It is not just the Apple customes that are being screwed here. All consumers are harmed by the Apple policy. And that means you.
Providers need to exercise their right to price their products based upon the efficiently of the channel and not be prevented from selling for less elsewhere. If they do not insist upon that right, boycott them.
Better yet, tell why you are not buying their products or services.
what is Apple doing for its 30%?
Just what is Apple doing?
Nothing at all.
Consumers buy the iDevice. They paid for it. And they may have paid for the App as well. Or, downloaded it. But, what did Apple do? What does Apple do?
Apple attempts to block access to the product or service unless paid off. Some racket.
No promotion. No support. No service. Nothing that benefits the products or service.
Should Microsoft get 30% because you used a PC to order the product or service? Should Linus get 30% simply because you used a PC? Or, laptop? Or, phone?
Who says Apple should get anything at all?
Google does not get 30% of the sale just because you found the item using a search.
Apple at best is providing a means to find products and services. But, it is doing nothing to promote any product. Apple does absolutely nothing deserving of a fee.
Does eBay take 30% of the sales price just because it listed the item?
You have to be an idiot to use an iDevice from Apple. Pure and simple. And if you are a service provider you need to have your head examined. You have a hole in it.
grabbing 30% for what?
Just exactly what is Apple doing for its 30%?
Nothing. Excepting not blocking access to the idiots that buy Apple products. Clear and simple.
Who needs a monopolist in the industry when you have jerkheads running Apple. The big jerk may be gone but those who remain also think they own the customer and can block services unless they are paid off.
Not only arrogant but stupid as well.
For a consumer using an Apple app and you have found a fool.
30% for nothing
Particularly when Apple does nothing for the 30%.
Brick and mortor stores actually buy inventory, stock it, promote it, give it shelf space, etc. Even online operations may promote a product or service.
Apple does absolutely nothing for the 30%. Save for attempting to block access to customers if not paid off.
Simply do not deal with idiots like Apple.
Nokia does not know who it's against
Nokia thinks it must compete against Google.
But, Nokia is in the handset market not the OS market. And Google does not make handsets.
Focusing only on the Microsoft OS will only limit the marketplace for Nokia. While other true competitors for Nokia can make both a Microsoft and a Google phone.
Elop still thinks he works for Microsoft.
sure, why not both or all three
Nokia seems bound to not understand the market it is in. Or, it's own business.
If you are going to focus upon hardware you are going to be much better off going with the flow when it comes to software. That may mean a MeeGo table. Or, it might be an Android tablet. Or, even a Microsoft tablet.
Choosing just one is far too limiting.
You can go strickly proprietary as has Apple. But, even HP is likely to not focus so strongly on WebOS that it ignores other operating systems.
Not picking Android because it does not want to be an "also ran Android" is silly. You still have to compete with them regardless. That is the huge mistake that Nokia has already made in regard to focusing only on the Microsoft phone. Coming out with a MS phone does not protect Nokia against the Android phones. They are still competitors regardless of whether or not Nokia makes one. Or, two or three.
What is Nokia's business? If it is to make the best handsets, then you do so for all prominent software systems. Why restrict yourself? If you did not have the staff to make software work it might make sense. Or, as in the past, if you had and applied only your own software, it might make sense. Apple takes that route.
But, if you only make the hardware, it is stupid to restrict yourself to only one OS. Even if it is a good choice. And right now, Microsoft is not up to par. And it may never be. Microsoft has to compete against the likes of Google, Apple and even RIM. Adding the Nokia set does not change that.
Funny how some in the industry think they are better off by offer less choice. Less choice than is already out there for the consumer.
don't for the 30% Apple cut
And do not forget Apple's demand that it take 30% of subscriptions off the top.
Google has suggested only 10%.
It is going to cost you more to do business through Apple. A lot more. Or, at it is turning out, many subscriptions are blocked from Apple users. So you do not get it at all with Apple.
but what about those media suscriptions
Do you like paying 42% higher prices for media subscriptions?
Or, not having the app to subscribe at all?
"There is an app for that" is now "Apple precludes an app for that".
Interested in an Apple device? Not in the least. I do not partronize those hell bent upon illegal business practices.
or media subscriptions are available for less
Signing up for a media subscription should be about 42% more expensive from Apple.
Do you really want to pay a significantly higher price for the same subscription?
must be the reason
Must be the reason why PCs cost so much more than the MAC?
The whole idea of designing and developing a proprietary OS and hardware is pretty much proven to be a bad idea. Sure Apple has survived. And has even been profitable. But, that day is past.
And just look at the range of products from the XOOM to the Atrix to very cheap Android units.
In the Apple world you buy from one company, one product and pay a high price. With very little variety. Does Apple still think that only one size works?
Android tablets are very likely to do the same for tablets as they have done for smart phones. Namely a lot of choices to satisfy the various needs of consumers everywhere. Some will specialize for consumers. Some for corporate use, etc. Some are premium. Some are bargain basement.
Oh, and they all offer media subscriptions for a lot less money than Apple.
no doubt you are against the forced sale of IE
No doubt you are dead set against the forced sale of Internet Exporer?
Or, did you mean after all consumers are illegally required to purchase IE? Then and only then you claim you want the best technical product to succeed?
How about giving each consumer the right to decide that issue at the time of purchase?
Microsoft claims to have the interests of consumers at heart. After they buy that is.
but you still have to purchase the Windows Media Player
No consumer I know of or have ever heard of wants to be forced to buy something if they think they want other technology.
You can claim to dump Microsoft software only after you are first required to purchase it.
If you have a copy of the Windows Media Player, your opinion simply does not count. Microsoft got your money just the same.
because you were not given the choice
No Microsoft customer is given the choice NOT to purchase it.
Only illegal acts sell "time, talend and sweat" and force consumers to pay for it.
all is as it should be?
Since when is being forced to buy IE first "as it should be"
Consumers want to pick and choose all of their applications and not be force fed first.
Microsoft claims to act in the consumers interest. But, only after they have been forced to buy key Microsoft only applications. Before that it is screw all consumers.
If you have a copy of IE, you were forced to buy it first. No choice to avoid the purchase at all. Only later do the idiots from Microsoft act claiming to be in the interest of consumers.
you bought IE
You did not have a choice.
It is illegally commingled and bundled with the Microsoft OS.
So why wouldn't 50% still use it?
Now if Microsoft offered consumes a choice or allowed customers to download and install a browser of their choice like just about all other applications, then the comparison of use might make sense.
If you are forced to buy a burger each day for lunch (whether you eat it or not), it makes sense that most people would eat it. 90% are forced to buy it. Only 50% use it. That means that 45% toss the burger away.
Seems like those idiots should be complaining about the requirement to purchase that burger.
Being forced to buy a country mandated uniform is the same thing. Your opinion does not count. Every time you shop for clothes you have to buy the governments uniform. They your opinion on clothes would matter the same as browsers.
Both the US DOJ and the EU Commission have agreed to force the sale of IE.
Just remember, if you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not matter. Not to Microsoft, that is for sure. They get your money every time.
just like Netscape
Gates knows that killing off a competitor is easy. Just bundled and commingle IE with the OS.
So it is not surprising that Gates would anticipate Egypt turning off the Internet. And the reasons were similar.
Gates did not want Netscape to be running on Microsoft systems. So just bundled IE.
The jerkhead still thinks that is a good idea even though users only use IE about 50% of the time. It is the forced sale that is important. Just like the removal of the Internet.
Screw the people.
Just remember, if you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not count. That is not my doing. That is what Microsoft does to eliminate your opinion on the matter.
use Google, Bing does
Even Microsoft thinks its own search capability can be enhanced by what other engines do. And then claiming it is Bing all along. Not true.
Just go to Google and get it done.
not using IE
The choice not to use IE is a good one.
But, the better choice is not to purchase IE in the first place.
Oh, I forgot, that choice is illegally precluded for any and all Microsoft customers. You have to purchase IE.
It is also commingled illegally. So consumers are harmed deliberately by Microsoft.
What if you could not purchase IE so as to protect your children from such attacks. No choice for you either. You must purchase IE for your kids.
What if you could not purchase it for your mom? You know, proptecting her from such attachs? Again, that choice is refused. You must purchase IE no matter what. As a consumer you do not have the right NOT TO PURCHASE IE. Period.
Remember, if you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not matter. Not one bit. It is required by Microsoft that your opinion can not influence what you purchase from them.
Talk about being evit. Proven in a court of law that commingling code with the OS is in fact illegal and yet Microsoft continues the illegal practice. Why? Because that eliminates your opinion from having any impact on the marketplace.
a wish of good health
Aside from the fact that I personally do not agree with Apple policies (and no I do not own any Apple products), I very much appreciate what Apple has done.
Apple has shown the world that if you develop good products you can be successful without paying money to Microsoft. And that is very important.
As a consumer you always want choices. Those idiots working for Microsoft that claim otherwise are just Microsoft employees afraid to identify themselves for fear of being disbelieved. Besides they know fraud works better for Microsoft than anything. Force everyone to buy Internet Explorer and just lie to them about why. Consumers are idiots anyway. They believe anything. Fraud does work. There is no doubt about that. Even incompetient managers know that.
But, as for Steve Jobs personally, I wish him good health. Besides the industry needs more people who will take the initiative to satisfy consumer's needs as opposed to ignore them and try to force the consumer. Apple does that too by the way. So the name Jesus phone does not really fit the company. But, Apple has been necessary for the industry.
Who are those idiots that buy inferior products simply because Microosoft is trying to sell them? Or, not trying to sell them because they know the consumer is forced to buy them? Do you remember any advertisement for Internet Explorer? You do not see them for other browsers either but they are all either free or bundled with the OS. (Even Apple bundles Safari.) Yet, no one in the industry will dispute that the browser is a key product.
Why is the choice of a key product outside the choice of any and all consumers? First you must buy the illegally bundled one. And only then can you get a second car free.
You have to be idiot to not know that illegal activity is prevelent and controlling YOU.
But, Apple has shown that you can develop any number of products in the industry and be successful. And that after all is what is important about Apple.
even Gates gave half a billion
Even the Gates Foundation gave half a billion to instruct consumers how to save money.
Of course, those idiots would never suggest saving money on computers. Even if it is for the less fortunate.
No, when it comes to computers everyone must pay the high price of a Microsoft OS and Microsoft applications including Internet Explorer. Only then can they benefit from other less costly solutions.
IE not free
You purchased IE.
Microsfot forced you to pay money for IE. It came illegally bundled with the OS. It came illegally commingled with the OS.
what patents do
Patents do not let you make things. Neither do they assure that the things you make will sell.
Patents PREVENT others from making the item. And maybe in this case that is a good thing. Putting together a corrupt reviewing system would be bad news. And in this case it might turn all reviews of Apple products into advertisements only. And that would be of little help to anyone. Except the advertiser of course. But, consumers would soon figure out that a review of an Apple product is only an advertisement. So just ignore it.
Putting a patent on it means that no one could use the process without paying Apple royalties. And that alone could assure it won't happen. And interestingly enough those organizations that review products could refuse to deal with Apple products at all because it would cost them money to comply.
It would seem that Apple wants to patent something that most or all organizations would not want. They would lose any credability with consumers. Giving organizations the incentive to refuse to do things that way is a good thing.
phones, pads, tablets and ???
Phones, pads, tablets and just about any mobile type device is going to be useless without a connection. So what?
It would appear the Chrome OS may provide multiple devices that could be useful on a daily basis without having to port them all around the place. Borrow one at Starbucks? That should work fine. Borrow one at a motel? Sure, why not? Have one at work and at home but not be required to port it back and forth everyday. Even corporations could have a few spare ones laying around that could be borrowed by visitors.
There are a lot of advantages to not having your personal data on the machine you carry around. Like not having to carry it at all.
The mindset may need changing. But, many companies may find that it is much easier to do that for the employees. Give them all a device that gives them remote access to their data but not be subject to being ripped off in transit. No local personal data means a lot fewer headaches.
Would I want one? Not as my main machine. No way. But, if I knew I had access elsewhere and did not have to port around all my stuff and risk losing it in transit, I could be very interested.
How many employees carry their laptop to and from work on a daily basis? How much fun is that? How many have arranged for means to avoid that port?
A light client can be quite useful on a daily basis. One that you do not have to worry about. One that you could lend to a friend? Safely? One that you could borrow from a friend?
Mobile devices just are not the same as a big fat and fast desktop system. And they never will be.
Do you really carry your favorite movies back and forth to work every day?
Being able to operate offline is useful if limited.
And it makes a whole lot more sense than selling a $300 to $500 desktop application and then advertising the cloud capabilities. Microsoft spends a lot of money doing that. As opposed to what?
As opposed to building a cloud app (with offline capabilities) that does not require a $300 to $500 investment in an office suite for local use.
Strange that the Gates foundations spends half a billion to advise low income individuals how to save money but never mention Google apps. Or, Microsoft not providing a cloud based service that does not require hundreds of dollars in investments in desktop crap first.
To Microsoft cloud apps doe not exist until after you pay them hundreds of dollars. Then they advertise their options in the cloud. How stupid do they think consumers are? If they are Microsoft customers, pretty stupid.
Because for many individuals the Internet is their computer.
And for corporate types, control is everything. Control and simplicity.
If you think a computer should do everything that is fine. I understand that. I much prefer that myself. But, for a vast majority of users simplicity is key. And access to the Internet is all they want anyway.
Corporate may be more likely
Corporate may be more likely.
It is a more controlled environment. Plus many employees have only a limited use of or for the Internet or for any computer system.
Chances are pretty high that if you are an employee for a large company, your use of a computer of any kind is very limited. And that is exactly what IT managers want. Give each employee a device that lets them do their assigned work and nothing more. It is ideal in many situations.
Individual consumers may think differently. Even small businesses. But, true corporate work is all about control and efficiency. Not flexibility and do as you wish.
Internet hardly a one trick pony
For a large number of users Internet access is their only trick.
Email, IM, social networks, searches, etc. That is their life. Being limited to Internet access is hardly a limitation when that is all you do anyway.
Hey, I would not want that myself. But, I develop code. I am not the normal user. Neither do I use anything from Microsoft unless forced to by service providers.
Search might be a one trick pony. But, the Internet certainly is not.
all the apps you need?
You do not need a Microsoft OS at all.
The whole point of the Chrome OS is that nothing needs to be configured and web apps satisfy all your needs. Now maybe you have something you think is critical and not available as a web app but I doubt it.
Salesmen always claim that their product is indispensable. But, then that is what identifies them as a salesman.
stop forcing the sale then
If Microsoft is at all concerned about consumers they would stop forcing the sale of IE upon everyone.
Funny that Microsoft thinks about stopping the tracking but not stopping the forced sale. IE costs real money. Cash money. Yet, the idiots at Microsoft claim to think that all consumers want to spend more money for their crap.
Give individual consumers the choice or go home.
only those forced to purchase IE
Only those forced to purchase IE.
All consumers rather have a choice to NOT purchase it. And that is true regardless of what the technology might happen to be.
Only salesman think a forced sale is good.
it would sound
And that would mean that a cross platform application is much easier to accomplish.
Of course Microsoft is never for anything that gives a customer a choice.
worse than writing files
Reading files is normally much easier than writing. Or, at least it should be.
Sounds like a serious security violation.
At least non-Microsoft users are not likely to be attacked.
what is a virus?
What is a virus anyway?
I have not depended upon any antivirus software or seen one in 15 years. I have not wasted hours screwing around with that crap either. It has been nice.
Oh, but I switched to Linux in 95. I guess that explains it. Just think of all of the hours I have not had to waste.
not the same
Microsoft forces you to purchase IE.
Google does not tie its search results to other products. No money is involved either. With Microsoft money IS involved. YOU PAY FOR IE.
And that forces every other competitor to do without a revenue model for browsers.
I note that the EU Commission condones Microsoft's illegal conduct. So too does the US DOJ. Both want you to be forced to first PURCHASE IE.
It is an illegal foreced sale. YOU PAY MONEY.
no refund from Walmart
Despite the EULA you may not get a refund.
Recently I shopped at Walmart and the electronics manager did not even know about the wording of the EULA. He claimed complete ignorance. When I told him what it said, he simply refused to comply with it.
And that from a guy who bought his own computer from another outlet so he could avoid buying Vista.
Clearly Walmart refuses to honor the EULA with Microsoft's blessing.
don't all search engines do likewise?
Does not Bing post up information from Microsoft? Or, does it send you out to a Google site?
And what about Yahoo? Does their top site spin you out to Microsoft or Yahoo Financial? Or, Google?
Just because Google is dominant does not mean it can not provide instant answers under circumstances that searchers might want them.
But, most importantly Google is not making you pay money. Microsoft makes you pay money for bundled products. Products you may not want such as a browser or media player. But, you are illegally forced to pay for them.
And, the EU Commission and the US DOJ illegally condones Microsoft. So what do you expect them to do with Google?
Both could have required Microsoft to sell separate products separately. And they should have done so. But, they both wanted Microsoft to force the sale upon consumers. Consumers pay money for Microsoft products.
YOU paid money for IE.
So unless you do not have a copy of IE you can not complain about Google.
And that eliminates Microsoft, Microsoft employees and all of those individuals who claim to be a consumer but are really just promoting Microsoft products.
it is illegal to bundled IE
Microsoft does not have a right to force all consumers to purchase IE.
In the US the appellate court decided that commingling code bwtween the OS and IE was in fact illegal. So you can not say that Microsoft has that right. The law says otherwise.
Of course, Google is not forcing anyone to click on Google services much less pay for them in order to use search. Microsoft does in fact do that illegally.
And the US DOJ plus the EU Commission want you to be forced to purchase IE despite it being illegal. It is clear that neither of those two authorities even understand the meaning of fair and open markets. They both had their chances and decided Microsoft should have yet another monopoly.
uncommingle IE first
Microsoft is in no position to suggest anyone else be investigated for antitrust.
First, Microsoft should at least cease illegal acts it is committing. In antitrust to be sure.
Uncommingle IE first. Unbundle IE.
if Yahoo is concerned
If Yahoo is concerned about antitrust maybe they should insist that illegal antitrust activity from Microsoft (as determined by the federal courts) should actually cease before they do business with Microsoft.
Yes, the federal courts did decide that commingling the code between IE and the OS was in fact illegal. Microsoft appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and they refused to hear the case. So it is a legal certainty that Microsoft continues to violate the federal antitrust laws.
Yet, the US DOJ says that illegal antitrust activity is okay if Microsoft is doing it. They approved it. They condoned it.
And now Yahoo (and Microsoft) speak of antitrust? They really should clean their own kitchen before they invite guests over for dinner.
mistakes bite hard
There is no doubt that Novell made a number of mistakes.
One such mistake was not suing Microsoft for antitrust when it first began to bundle networking technology with the Microsoft OS.
Number one Networking technology should never be bundled with a given OS. In fact it can not be. Technically networking technology is use to communicate bwteen multiple systems and no where does that suggest that both system should be the same OS. In reality, lan communications should be just like the Internet. Simply put, no assumptions can be made about the OS running at the server or even on the client. As soon as you do that, you restrict the utility.
When Microsoft bundled their networking technology with the OS, Novell should have sued Microsoft to make certain the products remain separate. Everyone today still suffers from that lack of a decision on their part. Sure you can put Samba on Linux. And Microsoft puts their SMB on their OS. But, it would be a much better solution if consumers could pick and choose between several networking technologies that are readily available on all platforms. Networking by its very nature should be completely cross platform. And it is not because of Microsoft. And Novell for that matter.
Instead of suing Microsoft Novell just got Microsoft in include its client licenses on Microsoft platforms. But, that was not enough. It permitted Novell's Netware to work with Microsoft clients but it did nothing to allow Novell technology to replace Microsoft technology. And you only find real competition if products can substitute for each other. Without substitutes one technology will fade away.
The result is Microsoft's domination in server/client technology. Microsoft could do without Novell. But, Novell could never do without Microsoft. So Novell goes away. Slowly but surely. No substitution was possible.
The browser market went away due to illegal Microsoft practices. So too has the networking marketplace. No alternatives exist for networking on a group of Microsoft systems. None. And the EU Commission wonders how they can break up the monopoly on business servers. It won't break until networking technology is unbundled from the OS and consumers have a choice of Samba, Microsoft or NFS. And there is no way SAMBA or NFS can replace Microsoft networking technology as long as all consumers have to buy the Microsoft crap. It is the same as the browser market. As long as Microsoft illegally bundles separate products no alternative products will ever have a fair and open marketplace. And they do not. No browsers. No alternative networking. And that is true even though the entrie industry including all consumers would benefit from fair and open markets in those two technologies.
If you want fair and open markets you have to prevent illegal product bundling. Microsoft knows for certain that their monopoly is safe for as long as the so called authorities fail to figure that out.
Just because you think you need networking or you think you need a browser is absolutely no reason you should have to buy that technology from the OS vendor. Of course, Microsoft thinks otherwise because they do not want any competition and they do not want to have to sell or market their crap. That costs money. It is much easier to just violate the law and lie to consumers. So far the US DOJ and the EU Commission have been bought off. Either that or they can not think straight. Maybe they do not understand how Microsoft controls markets illegally. It might be they are that dumb. Or, they are just controlled policially or by money. But, neither one represents consumers or the industry.
just bundle it
Bill Gates was right. Just bundled it with the OS unless Apple, Google and Blackberry leave the market.
It worked with Netscape.
By the way, when Microsoft first started illegally bundling IE I suggested that they just bundle a cell phone with the OS. It is the same thing as a browser. Just another product Microsoft wants to force sell to everyone.
There is no difference between a cell phone and a browser. Bundling either one is illegal. Although I will admit it is hard to commingle the code bwtween a cell phone and an OS on a personal computer. Okay, so Microsoft can not illegally commingle the code. Scotch tape works too.
Then we can listen to Microsoft employees posing as consumers saying how much they like their MS phone.
binary sort anyone?
Hate to reply to my own post but I just had to tell you that I invented the binary sort routine.
I never did have a formal computer class or any kind although I did teach MIS at the University level for a number of years.
Back on the binary sort.
I need a sort routine. My friend the Hp salesman gave me a short code printout for a bubble sort. It worked but was not efficient enough. I finally came up with the binary sort. Actually my first working version used an ramdom pointer to the sorted list rather than the half way point. A random point was almost as good as splitting the field. It offered about 85 to 80 percent of the speed of a true binary sort routine (which I tried a bit later). It worked great. I never knew that the routine actually had a name until years later.
By the way, a bubble sort algorythm was used to sort pages of items stored on tape. Tape access was slow and serial. But, a bubble sort routine provided a way to sort an unlimited number of items bringing them from tape and putting them back with a minimum amount of tape time. 8K bytes user memory only goes so far.
Again, it only goes to show what a lawyer can do when you do not know any better.
It was 1972.
I had just leased a machine from HP, the 9830A. You can see the specs on the HpMuseum.org web site.
I was studying law at the time and knew I would need to have it do word processing. Perhaps not DTP as it became known but rather an automatic typewriter.
It came with the BASIC programming language and nothing more. Oh, and I got the extra string ROM. Not knowing any better I wrote my own word processing application that had global search and replace, spell checking and an unlimited document size. HP also sold a Facit typewriter with a whole bunch of solenoids for LQP (letter quality print).
It took a well to develop the application but by the time I started to practice law in 1974 it was fully developed. And HP at the time fully supported their system with office calls and the whole bit. At the time IBM only had their MTST machine. It could only print duplicates of what you had typed earlier. And Xerox was just coming out with their machine.
One day my legal secretary went to a product demo for Xerox. After that demo she asked the Xerox guy how to do spell checking and global search and replace. The Xerox salesman told her that no machine did that. So she went back to work in my law office that afternoon totally unimpressed.
When did the Apple I come out? And the IBM PC? Even Wordstar?
If you check the HPMuseum website you will see that the HP 9839A also offered a hard disc (sharable between 4 systems). That was not a toy. It was not until years later that it hooked up to the early spinwriters as they were called. I even remember seeing a Diablo spinwriter prototype. It was twice as fast as the Facit. It was only about 15 cps.
Just shows what a lawyer can do when you do not know any better.
I also wrote a very complete Tax Analysis application. It would spit out some 90 tax return abstracts in order to analysis real estate investments. Oh, and I wrote the accounting applications for my law office as well. Again, I never knew that shrink wrapped software may someday be available for office applications. Of course, they never were for that early machine anyway.
That HP machine also was available with a 250 LPM thermal printer. It only printed in upper case. But, it was very fast and quiet. It was not bested for rough drafts until the laser printers came out. First from HP of course. 250 LPM is almost instant.
But then that was 1972 hardware.
sender and recipient
Generally both the sender and receiver of a letter is priviledged to do with the content as they desire.
Simply put that means that when you receive a letter or email you can republish the contents if you so desire. Or, to put it another way, the sender does not have exclusive control over the contents of the letter. If you do not trust the other person then do not share your thoughts with them. It is pretty simply.
In the case of GMail it is unlikely that the sender has any indication at all about what Google has or has not done with the email. Unless it was canned completely and the receipient said the email was never received.
As always check the law in your own jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the recipient if you are concerned about this. But, as a sender, you are not in control. You share that with the recipient.
why review it if you have to purchase it?
What purpose can possibly be served if you are required to purchase it?
There is no decision to be made until after Microsoft gets your money.
If you work for Microsoft there is nothing to be gained by any review of the product. Everyone must purchase it anyway. Regardless of what it does.
If you were forced to buy my handburgers each lunch day, would you want it reviewed here? Or, anywhere?
If you were forced to buy a uniform for daily wear, why have it reviewed?
If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simply does not count. Microsoft illegally prevents it. So why even talk about it?
If you are raped do you really care hoqw good the sex was? Apparently some Microsoft supporters think so. But, then they are just paid to comment as if they were a consumer.
You do not think so?
Why discuss anything for which no decision can be made?
intertwined or commingled?
In the US commingled is clearly illegal. Microsoft even appealed that specific issue to the US Supreme Court and that court said it remains illegal.
Strange that both the US DOJ and the EC Commission want all consumers to be forced to continue to purchase IE without exception. Seeing a ballot screen after Microsoft gets your cash is meaningless.
Do you really think a developer exists anywhere that does not understand the importance of forceing everyone to actually purchase your product? If you claim so, you must be lying.
those on record
Those on record as objecting to the illegal bundling of IE with the OS from Microsoft can complain about what Google is doing.
Those Microsoft salesmen never did that. Yet, now they jump up and call the antitrust card?
Either you are for the correct enforcement of the law or you are not. If you only try to force the sale of IE yet complain about Google, then, well, you are only a salesman from Microsoft.
- It's true, the START MENU is coming BACK to Windows 8, hiss sources
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- How UK air traffic control system was caught asleep on the job
- Pic NASA Mars tank Curiosity rolls on old WET PATCH, sighs, sniffs for life signs
- Google embiggens its fat vid pipe Chromecast with TEN new supported apps